Slackers?

The campaign for a “Real Bottom Line of How Much Money it takes to Survive” has provided a much-needed resource to define what amount of money a family needs to meet its basic needs. The research and hard work put into this effort are to be commended. If nothing else, it confirms the inadequacy of our financial safety net of public assistance programs. It also explains the constant struggle our working poor families are facing in their effort to make ends meet. It further suggests that government programs should look to this new higher standard as a guide for eligibility. This would, of course, expand the benefits many of our financial assistance programs offer to many more families, which is a worthy goal. No one in America should do without basic human necessities.

Unfortunately, in a sample letter to the editor (see below) issued by the supporters of this plan, there seems to be very inappropriate comments about “welfare” and those receiving cash assistance as being “slackers.” Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines a “slacker” as “a person who shirks work or obligation.” The writer seems to be making the point that somehow the assistance we give to working families is not welfare and in the process chooses to malign those families who currently must rely on cash assistance.

The term “slacker” cannot be applied to folks receiving assistance under the “reformed” welfare system adopted in this country ten years ago. Welfare reform added time limits, work requirements, reporting requirements, and sophisticated computer monitoring systems to resolve the issues of who “deserved” public assistance raised by all the old myths about welfare. Folks receiving public assistance benefits cannot and do not shirk work or their many other obligations. However, apparently some of the advocates for the poor have adopted the currently fashionable political posturing of some that public assistance given to folks who are more like “us” is not welfare and, therefore, is acceptable. Folks who are more like “us” are more “deserving” of our help.

Instead of trashing the poorest people, those on cash assistance, we need to build stronger coalitions among all low-income families and individuals. The truth is that all means-tested financial assistance programs are welfare. That includes Medicaid, child care subsidies, housing assistance, earned income tax credits and HEAP. It baffles me as to why some programs are seen in such a positive light and others denigrated. Someone receiving financial assistance due to limited income is in the same boat as millions of other people who are sick, disabled, unemployed, divorced, elderly or just working at a low wage job. We should all be proud that we live in a country that feels a responsibility to help its less fortunate citizens. Pitting the poor against each other does not advance our efforts to create a just and fair society.

Jack Frech 11/10/08
Director, Athens County Department of Job and Family Services

====================================================================

DRAFT Op-ED for Submission to Daily Newspaper Editorial Editor by Low Income Advocate
Please review carefully and personalize with individual country information

What’s the REAL Bottom Line of How Much Money it Takes to Survive Here in XXXXX County and Why It Matters

As ______[job title and organization]_____________________________, I’ve learned that how we as a nation define, measure and report poverty is emotionally charged and can often generate more heat than light.

Many times, when the conversation turns to poverty here in America and in our community, logic and rationality can go out the window. And when that happens the possibility of any useful follow-up discussion about what, if anything, can and should be done to assist those who are not making it financially becomes almost impossible.

But in these scary and challenging economic times, it’s even more critical to have these kinds of discussions as more and more Ohioans find themselves closer to the margins and living on the edge.

I’ve seen it many times. Just using terms like “poverty”, “poor” or “low-income” can conjure up arguments, resentments, political agendas and a host of other distractions that don’t help us get any closer to answering the real question that we as citizens of any income level or political viewpoint should want to know: Exactly how much money does it take to be economically self-sufficient right here in our community? In other words, exactly how much money is required to be able to pay the basic bills without any family, charitable or government assistance?

If conservatives, liberals and everybody else could just find common ground on what economic self-sufficiency really means in the real world – what the REAL bottom line for survival is – then we could discuss and debate what we should do about it in a more meaningful way. We might not agree on the policy prescriptions or action agenda for helping people become more self sufficient but, at least, we could start the discussion on the same page.

With a new President and Congress (on the horizon) the Ohio Association of Community Action Agencies (OACAA) – the organization representing Ohio’s XX locally-governed poverty-fighting organizations – believed the time was right to answer this question for each of Ohio’s 88 counties. So, they asked the University of Washington to develop something called The Ohio Self Sufficiency Standard for 2008.

The Ohio Self-Sufficiency Standard uses a proven formula and real world data to determine exactly the minimum amount of money it takes to pay the rent, buy food, cover child care, get to work and just cover the basics without any savings, fun or frills in each of Ohio’s 88 counties.

Right here in XXXXXX County, for example, two working parents with an infant need to earn at a minimum of $XX,XXX a year to be considered self sufficient; that’s $X.XX per hour per parent. Again, this represents the REAL bottom line of what it takes to just get by. That figure is well above the federal poverty guidelines, which determine eligibility for programs like Head Start and Medicaid that can help low income working people better be able to hold onto a job. That figure is well above the minimum wage. In fact that figure is more than most jobs in Ohio pay.

The Ohio Self Sufficiency Standard presents a budget and the necessary income to meet that budget for various family sizes and configurations in every Ohio county along with full information on how the researchers determined each county’s self-sufficiency budgets. You can access the full report at:

www.oacaatraining.org (or newspaper web site, if posted there).
As you look through the report and digest the numbers keep these things in mind:

• The families who live below the self-sufficiency standard or even below the federal government’s definition of poverty – which is usually around half of the self-sufficiency standard – are by-and-large working families. They aren’t on welfare. They aren’t slacking off. They work low wage jobs and are treading water. Sadly today, with fewer jobs and lower wages in every corner of Ohio, working is too often not a ticket to true self sufficiency;

• In order to survive and be able to raise a family on wages that pay below the self-sufficiency standard, we believe – especially now -- that a solid system of work supports needs to be in place – child care assistance, health care, job-training and skills development, housing vouchers, etc. – to reward work and help assure families can cover the basics that low wages do not until additional training and job success moves them toward real self-sufficiency;
• We also believe that the federal Poverty Guidelines used to determine eligibility for these kinds of work supports should be adjusted to be closer to the self-sufficiency family budgeting standard in the report rather than the artificially low and outdated methods used to calculate them today.

Look through the self-sufficiency standard for your county and ask yourself if the numbers make sense as a way to determine a survival baseline. If they do, then join us in the coming dialogue on how we can assure more Ohio working families meet and ultimately exceed this standard.

XXXXXXX is XXXXXXXXXXXX

====================================================================

Low-Income Citizens Should Have a Voice

As the 2008 election campaign goes into full swing, candidates, politicians and the media are all focused on what votes they can count on: independent, senior, and young voters to name a few. However, an important step in the process that is often overlooked is that before somebody can actually vote in most states, they must be registered to vote.

The 1993 National Voter Registration Act was passed to make it easier for citizens to register to vote. It required states to offer voter registration at the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. Thus, this act is frequently referred to as the “Motor Voter” law. Recognizing that not all citizens have a diver’s license, Congress imposed other provisions in the Act to ensure that all citizens would have an opportunity.

Section 7 of the act “requires states to offer voter registration opportunities at all offices that provide public assistance and all offices that provide state-funded programs primarily engaged in providing services to persons with disabilities.”¹ Although this section was designed to make registering to vote easier for low-income citizens, government enforcement has been lax.

A report to the 110th Congress dated June 30, 2007 shows that Ohio received only 42,599 voter registrations from public assistance offices over the two year period of 2004-2006.² Serving millions of adults annually, public assistance agencies must do a better job in registering low-income citizens to vote.

A total of 882,708 voter registration applications were received over the same time period.³ In contrast, the motor vehicle offices collected 400,562 applications for voter registration.⁴

Cuyahoga and Franklin counties are the two most populated counties in the state, accounting for about 21 percent of the entire state population. However, these two counties combined only accounted for 2003 voter registration applications or about 4 percent of all voter registration applications received at public assistance offices.⁵ Montgomery County, on the other hand, has only half the population of Cuyahoga or Franklin County and recorded 7,925 voter registration applications at their public assistance office.⁶

Clearly, there is a large discrepancy in the services provided to low-income citizens across the state. According to Ohio Revised Code 3503.10, each designated public assistance agency is required to offer each and every client the opportunity to register to vote with “each application for services or assistance, and with each written application or form for recertification, renewal, or change of address.”⁷ If this section of the law were enforced across the board, more low-income citizens would be registered to vote.

However, depending on the county that you live in, there is no guarantee that clients are being asked if they would like to register. Merely having the applications available for clients that specifically ask for the form is not adhering to the current law. Steps need to be taken to assure that all public assistance agencies are asking clients if they would like to register and including the forms with regular applications for services.

The Secretary of State’s office must monitor designated agencies to ensure compliance with NVRA.

Another option to ensure that all Ohioans are able to cast their vote is to offer Election Day Registration (EDR). “Election Day Registration (EDR), sometimes called 'same day registration' (SDR), allows eligible voters to register and cast a ballot on Election Day.”⁸

Currently, nine states offer this option with positive voter turnout results: Maine; Minnesota; Wisconsin; Idaho; New Hampshire; Wyoming; Montana; Iowa and North Carolina.⁹ “More than 787,000 individuals used EDR to register and vote in the 2006 general election.”¹⁰

Ohio should seriously consider Election Day Registration or same day registration to increase participation in one of our most important civic duties: voting.

Rebekah Evans, Administrative Intern
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. U.S. Department of Justice. Civil Rights Division. Voting Section Home Page. About the National Voter Registration Act. Retrieved from: target="_blank">http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/nvra/activ_nvra.htm, last accessed January 8, 2008.

2, 3, 4. U.S. Election Assistance Commission. The Impact of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 on the Administration of Elections for Federal Office 2005-2006. A Report to the 110th Congress, June 30, 2007, page 34. Retrieved from: http://projectvote.org/fileadmin/ProjectVote/Publications/EAC_NVRArpt2006.pdf, last accessed December 11, 2007.

5,6. E-mail communication on 12/12/07 with Brian Green, Elections Counsel, Office of the Secretary of State. EAC Voter Registration Report.

7. Law Writer. Ohio Laws & Rules. Chapter 3503: Voters = Qualifications; Registration. Retrieved from: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3503, last accessed January 9, 2008.

8, 9, 10. Demos: A Network for Ideas and Actions. Voters Win with Election Day Registration. Updated winter 2008. Retrieved from: http://www.demos.org/pubs/Voters%20Win.pdf Last accessed January 9, 2008.

New report issued:

TANF: Failing America’s Poorest Children
by Athens County Job & Family Services

December, 2007

Executive Summary:
There are currently 5.5 million children living in extreme poverty in the United States. Extreme poverty is defined as living in a family whose income is less than 50 percent of poverty. The 2007 poverty level for a family of three is $17,170 annually. That means for a family of three living in extreme poverty, their income would be less than $8,585 a year.

These children live in desperate conditions of homelessness, unsafe housing, hunger and isolation. Their basic needs of food, shelter, clothing and transportation are not being met, let alone their ability to be kids by participating in school or community activities. These children are isolated from society because they are poor. These families suffer, trying to make ends meet without the financial means to do so. As a result, many turn to the welfare system for help.

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program has evolved from a safety net designed to help children and their families to one which insures their deprivation. This has happened in virtually all states at the hands of members of both political parties. TANF cash assistance caseloads dropped dramatically during the first years of welfare reform but have leveled off in the past five years.

There are currently 3 million children nationwide that receive cash assistance through the TANF program. States have the flexibility to design the program to meet the needs of their unique situations, yet are setting policies and issuing benefits that they know will not meet the needs of these families. Most state TANF programs, by design, restrict the income of a family to less than 50 percent of poverty. These children live in families who comply with all of the strict rules of welfare reform, yet the benefits they receive are too low to meet basic human needs.

The latest TANF reauthorization did not focus on the dynamics of why families are left on the cash assistance rolls, it focused more on paperwork. Instead of increasing maximum payment standards, states are choosing to spend less money on basic cash assistance and implementing new programs or increasing services through other programs like child care. Families who rely on cash assistance are desperate. Many cannot work or are struggling to find employment. Some are mentally or physically ill or disabled. Not that programs like child care or other support services for the working poor are unimportant; they are greatly needed. But families living at half the poverty level should not be asked to sacrifice their basic needs to support the working poor at much higher incomes. That support should come from those able to afford it.

Meeting basic needs for our most needy citizens should be the first priority for TANF funds, not the last. Now is the time to provide a decent standard of living for America’s poorest children.

Jack Frech, Director

[where: Athens, Ohio 45701]

The Deficit Reduction Act

The Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) of 2005 was signed into law February 8, 2006. The DRA reduces direct federal spending by $39 billion for the five-year period of 2006-2010. The act saves nearly $40 billion over five years. This includes savings related to program changes that are required, as well as optional programs and initiatives that states may pursue.

Within the provisions of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA), Congress has provided several opportunities for states to help enhance the financial support available to low income families that receive child support. While considered a way of recovering money for the state when initially implemented, the child support program is now seen as an important and effective “family-friendly” financial support program. With so many families struggling to meet basic needs on a daily basis, Ohio needs to make the commitment now and enact these optional measures.

The DRA provides several important changes to how child support will be treated when a family is receiving cash public assistance benefits. The DRA requires that pre-assistance child support arrears will no longer be required to be assigned to the state upon application for assistance. Optional provisions contained within the DRA include changes in child support disregard and pass through rules, the ability for the state to release its claim in favor of the family to several types of arrears, and, perhaps most importantly, the ability for payments collected through the federal income tax offset program to be paid to the family first instead of the state.

Currently, as part of the application process for public assistance, the family must assign its right to receive child support payments to the state, as a way of reimbursing the state for the cost of the assistance. This assignment of rights includes assigning away the right to child support arrears that accumulated prior to the family applying for assistance. Under the DRA that assignment of pre-assistance arrears must stop. The option that the DRA provides with regard to pre-assistance arrears is the effective date for implementing the ban. The ban on the assignment of pre-assistance arrears must be enacted in Ohio no later than October 1, 2009, but can be enacted as early as October 1, 2008.

The DRA allows Ohio to disregard child support payments ($100 per month if one child and $200 per month if more than one child) when determining eligibility for cash assistance, as long as that child support is then passed through to the family. This disregard and pass through would allow a family to retain full eligibility for cash assistance and would enhance their monthly income by the child support collected. Currently, child support collected for a family receiving cash assistance goes to the government.

Other family-friendly options include modifying the distribution rules, so that more of the child support collected is paid to the family first, instead of the state. The most important of these options relates to the distribution rules surrounding money collected through the federal income tax refund offset program. Currently, payments received through tax refund offset are paid first toward any arrears owed to the state. Adopting the family-friendly option of paying those collections to the family first will be a tremendous improvement in Ohio’s support for families as the federal tax refund offset program is a significant source of collections on child support arrears.

The options provided by the DRA are significant and the benefits to the affected families are undeniable. The obstacles to enacting the various modifications to current policy have nothing to do with the obvious wisdom of enacting the changes. The obstacles relate to budget considerations surrounding the cost of foregoing the reimbursement provided by the child support collections and the cost of modifying computer systems.

Despite any costs, all of the available options should be enacted and implemented as soon as possible. Families with incomes low enough to qualify for cash assistance are struggling to survive on a daily basis (on less than half of the resources that we know they need to meet their most basic needs). These families need the extra support offered by the DRA now. It must be the highest priority to enact these options as soon as possible. Money must be found in the current budget. The survival of these families depends on Ohio becoming “friendly” now.

Sources/More Information
Dept. of Health and Human Services

Clasp.org

Thomas

[where: Athens, Ohio 45701]

The SCHIP Debate: Missing the point

Who are America’s poorest children? “A child living in extreme poverty is defined as a child living in a family with income less than 50 percent of the poverty threshold.”(1) The current SCHIP debate between the President and Congress fails to focus on the children living in extreme poverty. In fact, the programs intended to help these children are not enough to provide for their basic needs.

Under the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program, most states restrict a family’s eligibility for cash assistance to those living below 50 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). These families struggle to meet their daily basic needs. These children live in desperate conditions of homelessness or unsafe housing, hunger and isolation, just to name a few. Their basic needs of food, shelter, clothing and transportation are not being met, let alone their ability to be kids by participating in school or community activities. These children are being isolated from society because they are poor.

America’s poorest children are those with little support. There are currently 3.1 million children living on the cash assistance payments under the TANF program, which varies widely by state. The current maximum benefit level for a family of three ranges from $923(2) in Alaska to $170 in Mississippi,(3) both remaining unchanged since 1999. The average amount of cash assistance a typical family of three receives in the United States is $432 a month. How many of you could pay rent, utilities, food, or even personal household items out of this amount? Sure, these families probably receive Food Stamps and Medicaid too. But, Food Stamps, when implemented, were never intended to meet the household’s full food costs. The maximum amount of Food Stamps for a family of three is $426 a month, but the average is more like $208 a month.(4) Even when combined, could you survive on $640 a month in cash and Food Stamps?

Just because these families likely qualify for Medicaid coverage from their receipt of cash assistance doesn’t mean we should ignore their most basic needs. Childhood is supposed to be fun; kids shouldn’t have to worry about health insurance, food, shelter, clothes or when they are going to move again. Unfortunately, families living at 50 percent of the FPL or lower have no way of protecting their children from those thoughts and ensuring a happy childhood.

This chart shows the current cash assistance benefit for each state and how it relates to the poverty level.

As one can see, these families live in desperate conditions, far below the 300% Medicaid expansion. A family of three living in Mississippi is at a meager 11.88% of the poverty level, while receiving only $170 in cash a month to survive. Twenty-one states give a family of three less than 25% of the poverty level. Just two states, Alaska and California, issue cash benefits to a family of three at slightly above 50%.

As one can see, these families live in desperate conditions, far below the 300 percent Medicaid expansion. A family of three living in Mississippi is at a meager 11.88 percent of the poverty level while receiving only $170 in cash a month to survive. Twenty-one states give a family of three less than 25 percent of the poverty level. Just two states, Alaska and California, issue cash benefits to a family of three at slightly above 50 percent.

What is the federal government doing to help these kids? Absolutely nothing. Why? Who knows? It’s not as though they don’t have the money; it’s already been issued to the states. But there is no federal oversight to make sure that states are focused on meeting the basic needs of our poorest children. States have the flexibility to issue cash assistance or other support programs, like child care and transportation however they see fit. Most states use only a small portion of their TANF funds to support cash assistance; only 38 percent nationwide.

Yes, it is a parent’s responsibility to care for their children. This adage makes no room for the scary possibilities that often become realities for families: job loss, disability, illness, economic downturns and other unforeseeable events that can devastate even the most economically stable families.

Families receiving cash assistance are means tested, put through a rigorous application process, comply with strict work rules, and they put aside their pride to even apply. These families want to work; they want to provide for their children.

Are the President and Congress ready to fight the same battle as the current SCHIP debate for our nation’s poorest children? How long do these families have to wait to put food on the table and a roof over their heads? These 3.1 million children living in extreme poverty as America’s poorest children need help now.

Tami Collins



Sources:
1. Federal Interagency Forum on child and Family Statistics. America’s Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2007. Found at: http://childstats.gov/americaschildren/eco1.asp, last accessed October 29, 2007.
2. Alaska Temporary Assistance Program. Income Limits and Maximum Payments. Found at http://www.hss.state.ak.us/dpa/programs/atap/, last accessed November 1, 2007.
3. Mississippi Division of Economic Assistance. TANF-Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. How much will the TANF payment be? Found at http://www.mdhs.state.ms.us/ea_tanf.html#How%20much, last accessed November 1, 2007.
4. United States Department of Agriculture. Food and Nutrition Service. Office of Analysis, Nutrition, and Evaluation. Characteristics of Food Stamp Households: Fiscal Year 2006 Summary. September 2007. Found at: http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/Published/FSP/FILES/Participation/2006CharacteristicsSummary.pdf, last accessed October 29, 2007.

[where: Athens, Ohio 45701]

SCHIP and Ohio's Poorest

SCHIP, established in title XXI of the Social Security Act, allows states to provide health care coverage to uninsured children up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL). The stated intent of Congress when it established the program in 1997, was to expand coverage beyond those who were poor to "targeted low-income" children–-which meant those above Medicaid's eligibility requirements and in uninsured households up to 200 percent FPL.

Most recently the U.S. House and the Senate approved the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (CHIPRA), to reauthorize SCHIP. Under CHIPRA, eligibility would increase up to 300 percent FPL and would include expanded outreach to enroll those currently eligible but not enrolled. However, the act was vetoed by the President on October 3, 2007. The full text of CHIPRA is available here.
Note: in government definitions, generally “poor” is below the 100 percent FPL and "low-income/working poor" is 100 percent to 200 percent FPL. For more on poverty guidelines and measurements, click here.

Here’s a look at the Federal Poverty Levels are in terms of family size and household annual income:
People----100%FPL-----200%FPL-----300% FPL
----1-------$ 10,210-------$ 20,420-------$ 30,630
----2-------$ 13,690-------$ 27,380-------$ 41,070
----3-------$ 17,170-------$ 34,340-------$ 51,510
----4-------$ 20,650-------$ 41,300-------$ 61,950
----5-------$ 24,130-------$ 48,260-------$ 72,390
----6-------$ 27,610-------$ 55,220-------$ 82,830

When we look at this struggle over CHIPRA, we agree that no child should be without health insurance. At the same time, we are trying to understand why the country is not more focused on the basic needs of our poorest citizens first. We have many children and families living below poverty, and even with the help of public assistance programs, they are unable to meet their basic needs to live day to day. Shouldn’t our priority be to our poorest citizens first? Where is the time and energy to focus on those who have the least?

In Ohio alone, 130,000 children are on the cash assistance program, Ohio Works First (OWF), which is funded by the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (federal welfare dollars). A typical family of two on the Ohio Works First cash assistance program receives only $336 a month in cash and a maximum of $284 in Food Stamps. How many people do you know that can live on only $620 a month? This amount is $521 a month below poverty – around 50 percent of the FPL. This means that these families must make difficult choices between the necessities of food, clothing, shelter, transportation, and other basic needs.

In our report, Ohio’s Poorest Children, we analyzed the costs of the most basic needs for a typical family of two: housing, utilities, food, and transportation. Health care was not included since these families would be covered by Medicaid.

Monthly Cost of Basic Needs for Family of Two:
Rent $613; Utilities $227; Food $248; Transportation $250 = Total $1,338
Looking at the very basic needs, we came to a minimum of $1,338 per month. This total doesn’t even begin to factor in other basic needs such as: first aid supplies (band-aids, over the counter medicines), school fees, cleaning supplies, paper products (toilet paper, tissues), personal hygiene products (soap, shampoo, hair brush, tooth brushes, toothpaste, feminine products), clothing (socks, underwear, coats, shoes), diapers, unexpected emergencies and more.

(For an even more in depth analysis of poverty, take a look at our report:An in-depth look at the issues of poverty.

Shouldn’t meeting basic needs of our nation’s most needy people (children and adults) be the FIRST priority for funding at the federal, state and local levels?


[where: Athens, Ohio 45701]

Worse than it seems

The recent Census report regarding income, poverty and health insurance coverage in the United States for 2006 got quite a bit of media attention. Yet, perhaps the least reported but most significant statistic is the increase in individuals who are living at less than 50 percent of the poverty level. Clearly, people living at this income level have a very difficult life, struggling to meet their most basic human necessities. When compared to the 2000 Census, there has been an increase in the total number of people, roughly 5.3 million, living below the poverty level. During the same time frame (2000-2006), there has been an increase of 3.2 million people living at less than 50 percent of poverty. This basically means that of the people that have fallen into poverty during these last six years, the fastest and largest growing segment, roughly 60 percent, has been those living at less than half the poverty level. The difference between a family living at less than 50 percent of poverty (less than $10,000 per year) versus a family under 100 percent ($20,000 a year) is huge. Obviously, all poor families are desperately struggling and are living in difficult circumstances. However, we are somewhat cavalier about the growing number of people that are living on less than $10,000 a year.

It would be difficult to deny that many of these families are in this desperate circumstance because of state and federal government policies which have drastically limited the assistance available to them. Families that receive Ohio Works First cash assistance, funded through the federal TANF Block grant, must have a gross income of less than 50 percent of poverty level in order to meet the initial means test for eligibility. Even worse, the cash benefits that we provide these families is only 28 percent of the poverty level. The Ohio Works First program serves over 120,000 children.

Furthermore, there is an increasing number of families who are not eligible for cash assistance due to time limits, sanctions and other program limitations. We are forcing more families to combine households just to survive. This increase in household size without an increase of income is driving more families to live further and further below the federal poverty level.

Other detrimental program policies include the failure of the federal government to resolve the eligibility problem for Social Security Disability and SSI. Currently, 70 percent of initial applications are denied and a majority of people must file for a hearing with an administrative hearing officer in order to have benefits established. The waiting time to get these hearings is frequently as much as two years. During that wait, many of these disabled individuals have no income whatsoever. This, coupled with the virtual elimination of programs in Ohio to provide any financial assistance for those individuals 18 to 65 without children, leaves a large number of people who are either forced to double or triple up in housing simply because they have no income.

The country was horrified to see families in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina who had no place to live, no food, no medical care and were struggling to survive. We are far less sensitive to the fact that we are driving more and more families and individuals into these similar desperate circumstances by design and choice rather then as a result of a natural disaster.

--Jack Frech
Director

[where: Athens, Ohio 45701]

The "type" of people who get public assistance

On Tuesday Casey Elliott of the Athens Messenger completed a three-part series delving into the lives of three families receiving public assistance in Athens County, Ohio.

There are about 1,400 people receiving such assistance in the county, and though this series featured only a few, it demonstrated an undeniable fact about the type of people who receive public assistance:

There is no "type" of people who get public assistance.

This myth about poor people--that they're lazy, unintelligent, uneducated, self-serving, or any other negative descriptor--is not only an inaccurate and unfair generalization. It's also, from what I've experienced and from what Elliott has demonstrated, usually the opposite of characteristics visible in those who've found themselves in poverty.

Countless unforeseeable events can and do lead intelligent, generous and hard-working individuals down paths that end in destitution. A serious injury, a plant shutdown, a sick family member or a house fire are just a few examples of extenuating circumstances that push families from "just making ends meet" to sucking up their pride and asking for assistance.

This is often the hardest decision the head of a household ever makes. Many view seeking public assistance as an admittance of failure, a recognition that they can't take care of themselves or their families. Would you be able to walk into Job & Family Services and ask for money? Would you be willing to jump through the hoops that welfare reform established, the work requirements and probing questions that are designed to prevent fraud but also make it extraordinarily difficult for deserving families to get assistance?

We at Job & Family Services see the faces of poverty every day, and can vouch that the circumstances that bring them to our door are numerous. Those who live in poverty do have some responsibility for where they are and where they’re going, but their situations aren't entirely within their control. Poverty has been pervasive in this region for decades, and the scarcity of good jobs, lack of affordable health care, limited education opportunities are just a few problems that fuel this persistent issue.

We applaud Elliott and the Messenger for putting names and faces to the often anonymous and overlooked poor families in Athens County. Her objective description of these families makes it a little more difficult for welfare opponents to make sweeping generalities of those on assistance that invalidate their needs and further stigmatize them.

Reanna Stoinoff, community relations intern

[where: Athens, Ohio 45701]

Athens Messenger Features Public Assistance

Casey Elliott, a reporter at the Athens Messenger, began on Sunday a series of articles about people receiving public assistance in Athens County, Ohio.

Check out the first article


....and the second!

Finally, the third.

Let us know what you think!

[where: Athens, Ohio 45701]

e-QuickPay Cards Begin to Expire

Child Support recipients who have not updated contact information will not receive renewal e-QuickPay Cards

Ohio’s e-QuickPay MasterCards, which directly deposit child support payments, will begin to expire this month,Ohio’s e-QuickPay MasterCards, which directly deposit child support payments, will begin to expire this month. Those whose addresses are not up to date with the Athens County Child Support Enforcement Agency may not receive replacement cards on time.

“We’re prohibited from forwarding these replacement cards, so if your address isn’t up to date you’ll experience some delays in receiving your new card,” said Randy Galbraith, director of the Athens County CSEA. He encouraged anyone who has moved since their last card was issued to call the CSEA at (740) 593-5046 to make arrangements to change current address information.

First implemented in 2004, e-QuickPay MasterCards are automatically loaded each month with child support payments and can be used as Debit cards at stores and ATMs. The State Office of Child Support offers this option to make accessing payments an easier, faster process. Guardians can enroll in e-QuickPay without having a credit check conducted and can then access deposits without having to pay check-cashing fees and without needing a separate bank account.

Renewal cards will be issued by the 20th day of whatever month is listed as the “Valid Thru” date on current cards. Cardholders can use current cards until the end of that month, and if they do not get a new card in the mail by the 20th, they should call the Ohio e-QuickPay customer service center at 1-800-503-1283.

Activation instructions will be enclosed with the renewal cards, and any current balances in child support accounts will not be affected by the card replacement.

The expiration of the first-issued e-QuickPay Cards falls in August, the month recognized statewide as Child Support Awareness Month. The Athens County CSEA has sponsored billboards and parenting-focused public service announcements and will continue to feature tips, data and suggestions based around the theme: “Child Support: It’s more than just money.”

The Athens County CSEA maintains approximated 4,500 cases each year and reported collections of more than $7 million during FY06. The agency also recently received an award for the highest percentage improvement for collections on current support among counties with similar caseloads in the state.


For more information about the Athens County Child Support Enforcement Agency, visit http://csea.athenscountygovernment.com, or call (740) 593-5046.

[where: Athens, Ohio 45701]

Reforming Welfare Reform

With the passage of the most recent budget, Ohio has remained in a pack with a great many other states who have chosen to allow their poorest children to struggle to meet their basic needs. Most states have done little or nothing to improve the benefit levels they provide for those families left on public assistance. One has to wonder when we, as a nation, are finally going to decide to stop punishing those people who must depend on the state for assistance. Oddly enough, expanding subsidies to those with higher incomes for child care or Medicaid is not considered as extending “welfare." Certainly those recipients, at the higher income levels, are not treated with the same disregard as we do the poorest of the poor families.

When Congress recently re-visited the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program through its reauthorization process, they apparently concluded that the biggest problem facing poor people was that too many who were sick, disabled, mentally ill or suffering with substance abuse, were getting off the hook from the work requirements of the TANF program and changed the requirements to limit the time allowed to address these issues. Apparently they also felt that they didn’t have enough paperwork changing hands between the state and federal government regarding documentation of work program participation. Obviously, they felt these two things were going to make life better for struggling families who live on TANF assistance.

Oddly enough, Congress seemed to pay little attention to the fact that caseloads have dropped dramatically, as much as two-thirds, and people currently on assistance are likely to fall into one of two categories. Nearly half of them are in what is known as “child only cases” in which a child on assistance is living with someone other then their natural parent, usually a grandparent, aunt or uncle. The second group would be those families who have significant barriers to employment as a result of low functioning levels, mental health problems, substance abuse, criminal records and a wide range of other serious challenges. More specifically, there are thousands of disabled parents who are waiting years for approval of SSI and must rely on TANF cash assistance in the meantime. It’s not such a stretch to understand that when you take a significant portion of the poverty population and basically filter out those that are employable, those left will have much more significant problems that must be addressed if or before they can become gainfully employed.

The states did implement a wide range of job training programs, expanded health care coverage and child care subsidies, all of which have been very helpful in removing families from cash assistance and providing support for them in their effort to survive working poverty. But nevertheless, this current welfare population, which has been relatively stable in number, has little choice but to endure their dependence on public assistance to meet their basic needs. The majority of these recipients are children.

It’s time for the federal government to take a serious look at those families left on assistance and consider the need to completely redesign the public assistance system. They need to address those families who are having the most difficulty in functioning in the workplace and perhaps, most of all must deal with the fact that there will always be some families dealing with insurmountable obstacles who must rely on public assistance to meet their basic needs. The fact that most states are providing assistance at only half of the poverty level can only amount to state-sponsored child abuse. Again we must remember, the primary recipients of cash assistance through the TANF program are children.

--Jack Frech, Director

Budget Blues: Shortcomings of Ohio's proposed budget

The new state budget includes some program expansions and improvements that will be very beneficial to struggling Ohio families. An increase in the income eligibility for Medicaid to 300 percent of the Federal Poverty Level will help thousands of uninsured children. An increase in child care provider payments will help many deserving child care providers. Expanding child care subsidies and early learning programs for families up to 200 percent of the poverty level will be a great benefit for children and their parents. Subsidies for food banks, home energy assistance and a variety of special earmarked programs will provide valuable resources for low-income Ohioans. With the support of the governor and the General Assembly, life will be a little better for many Ohioans.

But there is another side. Who lost so these programs could grow? Unfortunately, lawmakers have chosen to help the needy at the expense of the even more needy. While expanding eligibility for Medicaid for children up to 300 percent of poverty, the General Assembly rejected the governor's proposal to restore eligibility for the parents of children between 90 percent and 100 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. While they'll offer assistance to children in families making more than $50,000 a year, they deny help to parents making less than $15,000. I'm not sure why lawmakers imagined that the children in families below the poverty level don't suffer when parents can't get health care or are forced to pay out of pocket and face destitution.

All of the child care and other program expansions were funded out of the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families block grant. While they are all beneficial, these expansions do not resolve the most severe problems that the lowest income families face. Families who must rely on TANF cash assistance are forced to live on an income of only 50 percent of the FPL. Ohio has consistently chosen to provide a grossly inadequate benefit level despite a wealth of available TANF funds. The first priority for the use of TANF funds must be to meet the basic needs for our poorest children--and they are not doing that. Ohio's poorest families will pay so those with more resources can benefit.

My concern is not whether the program expansions are needed or worthy. They are. However, it seems that the less fortunate have been forced to continue to suffer in order to pay for these expansions. Unfortunately, this decision was politically easier than asking those who are already comfortable to sacrifice more.

A big hole in the safety net: Ohio’s TANF funding, Part 7

The final words on this topic belong to the people on the receiving end of cash assistance, because it is their lives that this meager investment affects to such a great extent. In March, we surveyed recipients of OWF and asked them what they’d do if they could get an extra $100 a month in TANF funds. (A bill introduced by State Representative Jimmy Stewart (R-92) last year would have provided this additional assistance; it was dismissed.) We heard back from dozens of recipients; excerpts from some of the most telling responses are below:

“Right now we get $410 a month and the bank takes $5 out to cash it and $400 goes straight to my landlord. So my family is left with $5.”

“$100 a month doesn’t seem like much to very many people. It does to my family and myself...I could have good roofing nails put in my roof to replace the old used ones, so maybe my roof wouldn’t leak as often. I could save and maybe have struts put on my car, then it won’t scare me when the kids ride with me. $100 could do a lot to make our lives a little nicer and even safer.”

“A trip to the zoo wouldn’t be out of the question. It’s not much fun telling your child maybe next month we’ll be able to afford it, knowing that we won’t.”

“We have to plan only the most necessary trips to town or school in our car. We have to wash clothes by hand in the bathtub instead of going to the Laundromat. I’m always scared that I’m not going to be able to keep the electricity on. My son is a freshman in high school and he’s an excellent student with perfect attendance. It breaks my heart when he feels my despair and I wish that life could be a little more fun for him.”

“My husband is disabled and I’m medically not allowed to work. With the amount of money that we get from the state, I can’t pay all of the bills. With rent, water, trash, gas, phone, electric and car insurance, we come about $200 short every month. And that doesn’t include the extra food that we have to buy with cash because the food stamps aren’t enough to feed four people fully.”

“I face utility shutoff every month. I receive $336 a month; my rent is $300 and that is the cheapest I can find. That only leaves me $36 to pay utilities and buy diapers for my two-year-old son.”

“If I had another $100 dollars I could at least fully pay my rent. My rent is $425 a month and OWF sends me $410. My rent does not include utilities and I have two small children, ages 3 and 3 months. My car needs fixed and I can’t afford a babysitter. I struggle every month, thinking that month my kids and I may not have a roof over our heads. The stress of no money makes it hard to see the little things in live anymore.”

“We are raising our three granddaughters on what my husband gets from SSI and the $410 from OWF. $100 may not seem like a lot, but it would help to get the girls clothes and shoes when they need them.”

“I struggle with keeping my baby in diapers and having enough money for bills and rent. My baby goes without diapers sometimes because I have to pay my rent and bills so I’m not homeless with four children.”

“I could buy more healthy food for my children.”

“To some people $100 is nothing. My family struggles every day to pay bills, put food on the table and the extra money would help. I have a child in kindergarten who always needs something for school. Her father works but doesn’t make enough to support a family our size. My kids are always in need of something and I hope you realize how this would help our families and our kids. I feel bad for receiving any kind of help from welfare but we do try to provide—everyone has a hard time once in awhile. Please, don’t let the children go without. Help us get by a little better.”

A big hole in the safety net: Ohio’s TANF funding, Part 6

The proposed budget

The Administration has indicated that their rationale for not providing a decent increase in the level of public assistance is that OWF children will be receiving other services that will somehow help compensate for the fact that they do not have enough money to meet their basic needs. A review of the governor’s budget proposal would indicate that there are several areas in which families may receive some additional help.

The largest increase in the governor’s budget for TANF is going to a fee increase for child care providers. They will receive an increase of 11 percent, beginning this May. This will increase the average payment per child from approximately $400 to about $440 a month. Only about 25 percent of OWF children receive child care assistance. Those assistance payments are made directly to the child care provider and not to the OWF family. While increasing these provider fees may be very well warranted, it does not help OWF families pay their bills and put food on the table.

The governor’s budget also calls for expansions of the Early Learning Initiative (ELI) and other child development activities. All of these activities are already available to OWF families; however, none of these programs provides any assistance to help these families meet their basic needs. Though these development activities can potentially do a lot of good, participation levels are low. In the face of possible eviction, empty dinner plates and spotty employment, it is difficult for families to find the time or energy to focus on learning activities. Recent studies regarding the long-term effects of child care on the developmental abilities of children have determined that the quality of life within the family is a more significant determinant of success for children’s development than is child care or any other activity.

Another issue that has been raised regarding the potential increase in OWF benefits is “sustainability.” There is no doubt that the TANF block grant is a fixed, limited amount of money. Even with the huge unspent balance of funds(about $403 million was unobligated before the new budget proposal), there is obviously a finite limit on how many activities can be funded through this source. It is ironic that the issue of sustainability seems to be raised more often with issues such as providing direct cash assistance to families than it does for the wide range of other services funded through TANF dollars.

In reality, cash assistance accounts for only about 25 percent of all TANF funding, despite the fact that meeting basic human needs should be the first priority for these funds. There must be a serious discussion about what the priorities for TANF funding should be as we move forward, and it should involve a discussion of the full range of services currently funded.

There is no less guarantee of “sustainability” for kinship care or child care than there is for cash assistance. For the past 30 years, while many social services programs have come and gone, we have always provided cash assistance to low-income families (albeit at an inadequate level.) It is also true that during that entire 30-year span, and in the face of serious budget challenges, no governor or general assembly has ever actually cut the level of benefits for the assistance being provided through the OWF or the former Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) program. It is highly unlikely that cash assistance benefits would be cut in the future. In fact, it is far more likely that it would be some of the other wide range of TANF-funded services that would be in jeopardy. Perhaps this is why there has been so little support throughout the human services community for an increase in public assistance benefits. Despite a lack of support, the obvious fact is that an increase in cash assistance is necessary and would improve the lives of Ohio’s neediest children.

--Jack Frech, Director

Response to Athens TANF Question

In response to a question sent by one of our subscribers, here are the figures for Athens County's OWF (Ohio Works First) recipients for the same time period, December 2006: (The original post that originated this question.)

(Click on the table to view it larger.)

As you can see, the majority of OWF cases in Athens county are actually both Adult and Child Cases. Our Child-Only cases are only 32 percent of our total caseload, compared to the state average of about 52 percent.

Thanks for your question, and keep them coming!

A big hole in the safety net: Ohio’s TANF funding, Part 5

Additional benefits that OWF families may receive

Most OWF families are also eligible to receive Medicaid and Food Stamps. County Job and Family Services offices offer a wide variety of emergency and employment support assistance through the Prevention, Retention and Contingency (PRC) program, based on each county’s individualized plan.

Fewer than 7 percent of OWF families receive subsidized housing assistance.

Families with children under the age of five and pregnant women may receive help through the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program. The average benefit is $34 per month and goes toward nutritious food.

The Home Energy Assistance Program (HEAP) offers financial aid for heating costs. The average benefit is $296 per heating season. The Percentage of Income Payment Plan (PIPP) offers low income consumers of regulated utilities an extended payment plan to reduce the high cost of energy during the heating season. There is no subsidy in the program and low income families participating are over $530 million in debt to utility companies in electrical services alone.

There are a number of local services such as food pantries, soup kitchens and homeless shelters intended to provide help in “emergency” situations. Unfortunately, many OWF and working poor families have been forced to rely on them on a regular, recurring basis. Only about 25 percent of OWF families receive child care services. While beneficial, these services can’t bridge the gap between OWF benefit levels and the basic needs of these families.

--Jack Frech

A big hole in the safety net: Ohio’s TANF funding, Part 4

Determining eligibility

The state spends millions of dollars determining eligibility for OWF. Ohio has one of the most sophisticated means testing systems in the country. Families are screened through a centralized computer system. Computer matches are run against other financial database systems as well, including reports of new hires from employers. Social Security, Internal Revenue Service, Unemployment and Workers Compensation benefits and banking records are all cross matched with public assistance data.

Recipients are required to present a Social Security number for all household members. They must also furnish written proof of identity, age, citizenship, residence, income, pregnancy, disability, or termination of employment.

Eligibility must be re-determined every six months for benefits to continue. Recipients are required to report any change in status (such as employment, household number, etc.) within 10 days.

If they are physically able, adult recipients are expected to meet a 30-hour per week work requirement.

The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services closely monitors the performance of the counties in their compliance with federal and state rules regarding the OWF program. (The only exception is the law requiring counties to offer all OWF recipients and applicants the opportunity to register to vote. There is no monitoring of compliance with this law.)

Ohio goes to great lengths to verify that the 130,000 children that remain on OWF cash assistance with their families are indeed poor and need the assistance. Nevertheless, we still provide benefits that rise to only 50 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. We are spending only about 25 percent of the TANF block grant on cash assistance. We are neglecting the needs of these families on purpose.

--Jack Frech, Director

A big hole in the safety net: Ohio’s TANF funding, Part 3

Living with grandparents

The most common OWF households consist of one or two children living with a relative who acts as a caregiver. Typically these caregivers are the children’s grandparents.

Of the roughly 80,000 households receiving OWF in December 2006, more than half (52.5 percent) were “child only” cases, meaning that only the children in these households receive public assistance. Child-only assistance groups have been steadily increasing over the past several years.


Of the 79,592 OWF cases in Ohio, about 52 percent are child-only cases, many with grandparents as caregivers. The average OWF household size is now two, given the larger increase in child-only cases.

More than 75.5 percent of OWF children are younger than 13. About 42 percent are under the age of six. Of the total OWF caseload in December 2006, 76 percent were children.

--Jack Frech, Director

A big hole in the safety net: Ohio’s TANF funding, Part 2

There are 130,000 children who depend on the TANF-funded cash assistance program, Ohio Works First. These children’s families are very poor. We spend a great deal of money, time and effort through our local County Department of Job and Family Services offices to prove that families receiving OWF assistance don’t have other resources and comply with all the program work requirements and time limits. After all this, we give them only about half of the amount we know they need to live on according to Federal Poverty Level standards. There is no doubt that this has caused many hardships for these children and their families.

We provide a typical OWF family with about $320 a month in cash and $280 in Food Stamps, with which they cannot meet their basic needs. Ohio has accumulated the largest balance of unspent TANF funds in the nation—about $431 million in unobligated funds—because we have been unwilling to provide a decent level of assistance for these kids.

The governor’s budget, which is still currently undergoing the approval process, does a lot to help children, just not the poorest children. It calls for a “cost of living” adjustment in January 2009 for OWF families at a cost of $4.6 million. It will be 3 percent, or about $9 a month. Because of a projected drop in caseloads, the actual OWF line item will decrease by about $25 million a year. Two years from now, children relying on TANF funding clearly won’t be any better off with this increase than they are now; it’s likely they’ll be worse off.

Last year, Representative Jimmy Stewart (R-District 92) introduced a bill to raise OWF benefits by $100 a month at a cost of $100 million in TANF funds. It was dismissed as being unsustainable. The governor’s new budget increases TANF funding expenditures by $200 million a year to go towards programs such as the Early Learning Initiative and child care provider payments. These programs are all necessary and helpful to the community at large, and may require additional funding, but they won’t pay the bills for the families on cash assistance.

--Jack Frech, Director

A big hole in the safety net: Ohio’s TANF funding, Part 1

With the implementation of the Welfare Reform Act in 1996, cash assistance caseloads have dropped dramatically as thousands of welfare recipients have taken jobs. While many of those former recipients have successfully left the welfare rolls and have improved financially as a result, some remain in poverty. In the first five years after welfare reform, caseloads dropped dramatically, but they have remained at the same level in the past five years—meaning there are people that just can’t get out of poverty through this system.

There are 130,000 children being served by the cash assistance program in Ohio. To put this number into perspective:

· If they were all in one place they would constitute the population of Youngstown, and would outnumber the populations of 67 of Ohio’s 88 counties; and
· If they held hands and formed a line it would stretch from Columbus to the Ohio River in Portsmouth, nearly 100 miles away.

The most dramatic change in the demographics of clients served by cash assistance has been the increase in “child only” cases. These are situations in which children are not living with their parents but rather with relative caregivers, usually grandparents. In these cases, as the name implies, only the children are eligible for benefits. This is now the most common family situation for children receiving cash benefits.

The average family of two on the OWF program receives only about $320 a month in cash assistance. Ohio must increase the cash assistance benefits to an adequate level. These 130,000 children live in families who comply with all of the strict rules of Welfare Reform, yet the benefits they receive are not enough to meet basic human needs.

--Jack Frech, Director